SAFFRON INC,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 25/06/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘ld. CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2012-13.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 4. A perusal of Form 35 shows that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay along with the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, on perusing the order of the ld. CIT(A) we find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by observing “The appellant has also not filed any request for 2 condonation of such delay.” Since the assessee had requested for the condonation of delay and as per the statement of the ld. Counsel, the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the cause for the delay and as per Form 35, there is a specific mention for the filing of the request for condonation of delay which may have missed the eyes of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the appeal in light of the request for condonation of delay and if satisfied, then decide the appeal on merits of the case after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 6th January, 2025 at Mumbai. (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER